SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[DarthVodka]

3 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Lord Clark probably has three basic questions to answer.

 

1). Can it be referred to arbitration?

 

2). Must it be referred to arbitration?

 

3). Do I recommend arbitration?

 

Hopefully the answers to 2 & 3 are no.

 

Friday afternoon will be the earliest we will get an answer, but more likely Monday, probably orally with written reasons to follow.

 

Do you think its say to say that one of this considerations for Q3 there 'would be will arbitration be a fair hearing/decision?' 

 

We know it likely will not be, but will he? Maybe the 'oot the gemme' comment might just lay on his mind

[Bazzas right boot]

Just now, Cruyff said:

I saw someone else say exactly the same thing the other day and it was doing my heid in. I'm worse than Morgan

 

I looked at it for about a minute and thought **** it! 

[Anything2]

8 minutes ago, Captain Canada said:

It seems like it would make little sense to have to go to arbitration and start the whole process again when so much has been covered in court already. Time is of the essence. 

Hopefully the judge sees the request for arbitration for what it is, an attempt to prejudice the outcome by gaining home advantage. It's a bit like Celtic not wanting to play at Murrayfield because it wasn't neutral enough. Levein's response that he would like to play at a neutral venue that didn't have a designated Celtic end was perfect. In the same way we should now be aiming to have the case heard by a body which the CEO of the defendants doesn't sit on their board of. 

[DETTY29]

6 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Lord Clark probably has three basic questions to answer.

 

1). Can it be referred to arbitration?

 

2). Must it be referred to arbitration?

 

3). Do I recommend arbitration?

 

Hopefully the answers to 2 & 3 are no.

 

Friday afternoon will be the earliest we will get an answer, but more likely Monday, probably written reasons to follow.

At this stage and end of the initial hearing could the judge sum up along lines of

 

- Despite underhand activities and governance of the SPFL

- Despite clearly misleading members as to what happened with the Dundee

- Despite on the face of it, the SFA Judicial Panel not being independent enough of the SPFL and/ or SFA

(or words to these effects)

 

However,  have little option per S33 of the Companies Act (or whatever reason) recommend Hearts / PT move to football arbitration.

[steve123]

3 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

At this stage and end of the initial hearing could the judge sum up along lines of

 

- Despite underhand activities and governance of the SPFL

- Despite clearly misleading members as to what happened with the Dundee

- Despite on the face of it, the SFA Judicial Panel not being independent enough of the SPFL and/ or SFA

(or words to these effects)

 

However,  have little option per S33 of the Companies Act (or whatever reason) recommend Hearts / PT move to football arbitration.

I suppose the judge can do what he likes, however from listening to it I hope he does not- no matter how it turns out he has mentioned in passing a few of the things that made us think the case was obvious as fans !!

Edited July 2, 2020 by steve123

[Footballfirst]

5 minutes ago, DarthVodka said:

 

Do you think its say to say that one of this considerations for Q3 there 'would be will arbitration be a fair hearing/decision?' 

 

We know it likely will not be, but will he? Maybe the 'oot the gemme' comment might just lay on his mind

He could make a judgement on the basis of time that he is currently best placed to hear the case, as he is already in possession of the arguments. 

 

However, the comment about being expelled from the SFA clearly struck a chord with him, but I don't know how much weight to put on it. Let's say it doesn't harm the Hearts/PT case.

[Cruyff]

I think the key point that David Thomson QC made with regards to SFA Arbitration was that this is a dispute between Heart of Midlothian Plc vs. The SPFL Ltd and its shareholders. This is not a footballing dispute, it is a Company dispute and has absolutely **** all to do with the SFA who are a separate entity. 

Edited July 2, 2020 by Cruyff

[Mikey1874]

19 minutes ago, Captain Canada said:

It seems like it would make little sense to have to go to arbitration and start the whole process again when so much has been covered in court already. Time is of the essence. 

 

Mr Thomson argued there is a public interest in case being held in public in court. 

[NANOJAMBO]

33 minutes ago, swavkav said:

So for those who have a better understanding of what is going on,  what’s the  chances of ND  having  to take the seat in the box?  

If it goes to trial him & Nelms  will be called - Hearts' QC said as much. 

[WorldChampions1902]

14 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

Lord Clark May be considering the wisdom of us going in front of the SFA when they could listen to us, then expel us from the league for having the temerity to ask Lord Clark to hear us our fairly

Yip!

 

I posted earlier today that I strongly believed they would regret using their, “out the gemme parlance”, and that didn’t take long to come to fruition IMHO.

[Mikey1874]

1 minute ago, Footballfirst said:

He could make a judgement on the basis of time that he is currently best placed to hear the case, as he is already in possession of the arguments. 

 

However, the comment about being expelled from the SFA clearly struck a chord with him, but I don't know how much weight to put on it. Let's say it doesn't harm the Hearts/PT case.

 

We could call Leanne Dempster who said last week it was ridiculous to suggest there was any chance of Hearts or Partick being expelled. 

 

It could be seen either way - that Hearts and Partick are prepared to take the risk.  They are confident they can take this case. Or that is something to be avoided. 

 

I do think we are heading to court for the full case to be heard. 

[dallan]

The fact that DU and the SPFL are so desperate for it to be heard in arbitration shows how confident they are of winning by going down that route.

 

Basically DU have no defense, just an easier ride...

[Riccarton3]

21 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

Lord Clark May be considering the wisdom of us going in front of the SFA when they could listen to us, then expel us from the league for having the temerity to ask Lord Clark to hear us our fairly

That must have rung an alarm bell. Quite extraordinary. 

[Footballfirst]

6 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

If it goes to trial him & Nelms  will be called - Hearts' QC said as much. 

 

It could either be as witnesses with cross examination (less likely) or in the form of sworn affidavits. 

[Byyy The Light]

2 minutes ago, dallan said:

The fact that DU and the SPFL are so desperate for it to be heard in arbitration shows how confident they are of winning by going down that route.

 

Basically DU have no defense, just an easier ride...

 

It shouldn't be Dundee Utd's case to argue. Certainly not in this arena.

[NANOJAMBO]

Just now, Footballfirst said:

 

It could either be as witnesses with cross examination (less likely) or in the form of sworn affidavits. 

Agreed. I was just trying to keep it brief (sorry for the pun). 

Affidavits were specifically mentioned. 

[OTT]

24 minutes ago, Locky said:

Glad to see the SPFL bully tactics and blatant lies coming out in the open, although this is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

People who think this is just a football debate are totally wrong. This is a national sporting governing body scaremongering and lying to its members. Many of the other 39 clubs won't realise it, but we're doing good for the game. Sadly, it's taken for us to be in a shite position for it to happen, but we're fighting for a good cause here. Maybe some appreciation from fellow members wouldn't go a miss here.

 

Did I read it right in the summary post, that SFA's own rules state that they're not required to give approval for cases to go to court? Or did I interpret that wrong?

 

We've long argued on Kickback that Scottish football is corrupt, referees are biased etc. but definitive proof has never been forthcoming. This offers an opportunity to open the books and take a deep dive into the SPFL's actions during this period. The feeling I'm getting is that they really don't want that. When people feel they are untouchable, they get sloppy. I'd be very interested to see the communications relating to Dundee from other member clubs and from Doncaster himself. I think that could be deeply damaging to his position. 

 

Accountability and transparency has long been absent from our game and I think from a greater good aspect this could be huge if we're successful. Even if all we're successful in is getting the matter in front of a Judge in a civil trial sense. One glaring thing is the SPFL lawyer admitting 4.48 being the time the vote was received yet Mclennan has claimed it to be far later 'late evening', I think more inconsistencies will rear their head as this goes on and you don't know how any of them are going to respond on the stand, they could very easily crack. Stewart Robertson for example has no reason to lie or be cute with the truth with regards to the boards conduct throughout. 

 

I'd agree, there is huge public interest in this and it will do the game good to finally be able to air some of this publicly. It could be the watergate moment Scottish football has needed for decades. A real chance to drain the swamp. Its important to note that they didn't think this would get to court. At least not in the early stages, so how they have discussed the matter amongst themselves will be very revealing. Lord Clarke has a huge decision on his hands here, but we're the good guys here. Back the club who have tried to work with the SPFL every step of the way or back the shady governing body who didn't even want this hearing public? I'd hope its a no brainer for Lord Clarke.

[Djnoisy]

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hearts/court-told-public-must-hear-details-spfl-conduct-and-dundee-vote-hearts-partick-case-2902271

 

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/sport/18557499.hearts-partick-thistle-case-spfl-rumbles-third-day/

 

Two completely different takes on the case. The cover-up in the Glasgow press over the Dundee vote is compelling  enough evidence. 

Edited July 2, 2020 by Djnoisy

[Jambo66]

I think that one of the problems with arbitration is that the issues to be addressed are virtually all specifically legal - statutes, case law etc. The arbitration panel must be comprised of people who are legally trained otherwise they cannot realistically be expected to come to the correct view.

 

If the panel comprises retired legal practitioners, I am not sure that is good enough.

 

The other thing to consider is that whether it is heard in court or goes to arbitration, there will be just as many QCs and solicitors involved anyway. In other words, the process will neither cheaper nor quicker. Indeed, it is likely that the courts will deal with this more quickly. Since a speedy resolution is required, I think there there is a strong argument to say that having this decided in the CoS is actually in the interests of justice.

 

And all of that applies even if we accept that an SFA arbitration would be fair in the first place.

[doctor jambo]

We could really be doing with dispensing with the “members” and “clubs” shite forever.

these are companies. End of. Commercial entities with employees, contracts, shares and so on.

The pretence over the amateur thing should be swept away .

 

 

[Jambo66]

5 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

We've long argued on Kickback that Scottish football is corrupt, referees are biased etc. but definitive proof has never been forthcoming. This offers an opportunity to open the books and take a deep dive into the SPFL's actions during this period. The feeling I'm getting is that they really don't want that. When people feel they are untouchable, they get sloppy. I'd be very interested to see the communications relating to Dundee from other member clubs and from Doncaster himself. I think that could be deeply damaging to his position. 

 

Accountability and transparency has long been absent from our game and I think from a greater good aspect this could be huge if we're successful. Even if all we're successful in is getting the matter in front of a Judge in a civil trial sense. One glaring thing is the SPFL lawyer admitting 4.48 being the time the vote was received yet Mclennan has claimed it to be far later 'late evening', I think more inconsistencies will rear their head as this goes on and you don't know how any of them are going to respond on the stand, they could very easily crack. Stewart Robertson for example has no reason to lie or be cute with the truth with regards to the boards conduct throughout. 

 

I'd agree, there is huge public interest in this and it will do the game good to finally be able to air some of this publicly. It could be the watergate moment Scottish football has needed for decades. A real chance to drain the swamp. Its important to note that they didn't think this would get to court. At least not in the early stages, so how they have discussed the matter amongst themselves will be very revealing. Lord Clarke has a huge decision on his hands here, but we're the good guys here. Back the club who have tried to work with the SPFL every step of the way or back the shady governing body who didn't even want this hearing public? I'd hope its a no brainer for Lord Clarke.

I'm with you all the way here.

[Gizmo]

23 minutes ago, DarthVodka said:

 

Do you think its say to say that one of this considerations for Q3 there 'would be will arbitration be a fair hearing/decision?' 

 

We know it likely will not be, but will he? Maybe the 'oot the gemme' comment might just lay on his mind

He clearly did not like a threat like that being aired in Court given that he referred to it openly. A threat like that will definitely colour his thoughts on the impartiality and fairness of a tribunal particularly if his thoughts were forming towards a decision that we likely had a winnable claim as a wronged party but he might have wanted to afford parties the opportunity for an amicable settlement to be reached via tribunal, since Courts are always keen on such solutions.

He might have bought the claim that arbitration could be a speedier way to resolve the dispute, but a fairer way with such threats being proffered? 

[tynietigers]

If we get the nod for court action then that’s when Doncaster will be phoning Budge to try and settle this out of court. The thing is the aren’t going to come up with the amount we are going for so would it be reconstruction 🤔 if not then court it is.

[PhoenixHearts]

Anyone else that listened in absolutely bored to tears by this Dundee Utd clown?

 

We've had about 6 hours or so of this and he's somehow managed to take up almost 50% of that time to himself talking the case to death.

 

In the 3+ hours he has been waffling on, he's basically just been repeating the same thing over and over.

Reminds me of that Ed Miliband interview were he just keeps answering questions with the exact same pre-written statement with the words in a different order. 

 

Bore off, Boreland.

 

For a case that was supposed to be between us and the SPFL, this guy hasn't half sucked up all the oxygen out of the room.

[Mikey1874]

If media go with the public interest argument as the Evening News have done that changes the whole narrative.

 

If Lord Clark rules in our favour. 

[Jammy T]

2 minutes ago, kila said:

The SPFL can't say 'Hearts waited months before taking legal action' when we were merely following the SPFL's own guidance with league reconstruction as a way to resolve the mess. And surely that means the SPFL took the arbitration route out of our hands timing wise given it was a can they kicked down the route for 2 months.

 

We were acting in good faith as we are contractually obliged to do - Exploring every option before taking action 1 again surprised that line didn’t come out (maybe it did)

[Jamboelite]

There are a couple of things that are interesting from this.

 

It appears, as you would expect, that Lord Clark is weighing up the time it would take for an arbitration to be arranged and evidence collated against the deadlines coming up.

 

He is also considering whether its fair by pushing this to arbitration that the outcome may inflict penalty financially or expulsion and whether that is right.
 

In relation to “football matters” I think it was good of Thomson to state that it doesnt say all matters need to goto arbitration first, so if its not this case that can go straight to court what meets that criteria.

 

These are all strong positives for us.

 

On the other side Lord Clark will be considering the strength of our case on point of law on what has been heard so far and consider if court really is the best place for this regardless of the tome factor.

 

I agree on the 1-1 and playing ET tomorrow but hopefully have the fresher legs.

[iainmac]

15 minutes ago, dallan said:

The fact that DU and the SPFL are so desperate for it to be heard in arbitration shows how confident they are of winning by going down that route.

 

Basically DU have no defense, just an easier ride...

 

My understanding of the Arbitration Panel is that a confidential list of appointees is provided to petitioners & defenders.

 

The petitioners pick someone from the list

The defenders pick someone from the list

Appointees 1 & 2 from above pick someone else off that list

 

What if the whole list is "rigged"? They've finally coughed to receiving the Dundee email at 16:48 after denying it for months  - what other stunts are they prepared to pull?

 

Why else - other than the public domain issue - would the SPFL be desperate to avoid scrutiny by one set of legal people (CoS) in favour of another set of legal people (Arbitration)?

[Unknown user]

If anyone cares to summarise for the night workers who'd been sleeping that would be great.

 

The one thing I do see is this "clubs" patter - such bullshit! It's a historical legacy from when we actually were a members' club, incorporation meant the club became a company.

Do we have many members, this club of ours?

[Jammy T]

5 minutes ago, PhoenixHearts said:

Anyone else that listened in absolutely bored to tears by this Dundee Utd clown?

 

We've had about 6 hours or so of this and he's somehow managed to take up almost 50% of that time to himself talking the case to death.

 

In the 3+ hours he has been waffling on, he's basically just been repeating the same thing over and over.

Reminds me of that Ed Miliband interview were he just keeps answering questions with the exact same pre-written statement with the words in a different order. 

 

Bore off, Boreland.

 

For a case that was supposed to be between us and the SPFL, this guy hasn't half sucked up all the oxygen out of the room.

He’s not the most exciting of chaps. Used to instruct him when he was a junior - no flair but technically very good (at construction....)

[OTT]

5 minutes ago, PhoenixHearts said:

Anyone else that listened in absolutely bored to tears by this Dundee Utd clown?

 

We've had about 6 hours or so of this and he's somehow managed to take up almost 50% of that time to himself talking the case to death.

 

In the 3+ hours he has been waffling on, he's basically just been repeating the same thing over and over.

Reminds me of that Ed Miliband interview were he just keeps answering questions with the exact same pre-written statement with the words in a different order. 

 

Bore off, Boreland.

 

For a case that was supposed to be between us and the SPFL, this guy hasn't half sucked up all the oxygen out of the room.

 

Could it be a strategy? Choke up and stretch out proceedings?

 

I assume there is a belief that once fixtures are out then reinstatement is no longer an option?

[Mikey1874]

8 minutes ago, Gizmo said:

He clearly did not like a threat like that being aired in Court given that he referred to it openly. A threat like that will definitely colour his thoughts on the impartiality and fairness of a tribunal particularly if his thoughts were forming towards a decision that we likely had a winnable claim as a wronged party but he might have wanted to afford parties the opportunity for an amicable settlement to be reached via tribunal, since Courts are always keen on such solutions.

He might have bought the claim that arbitration could be a speedier way to resolve the dispute, but a fairer way with such threats being proffered? 

 

This stage of the court process was an opportunity to come to an agreement.

 

But the SPFL (and using the other clubs) have chosen to reject our case effectively. Dundee United etc case is to dismiss the whole case. 

[iainmac]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

If anyone cares to summarise for the night workers who'd been sleeping that would be great.

 

The one thing I do see is this "clubs" patter - such bullshit! It's a historical legacy from when we actually were a members' club, incorporation meant the club became a company.

Do we have many members, this club of ours?

 

We've petitioned this as shareholders of the SPFL under Company Law.

[frankblack]

1 minute ago, OTT said:

 

Could it be a strategy? Choke up and stretch out proceedings?

 

I assume there is a belief that once fixtures are out then reinstatement is no longer an option?

 

Fixtures are fluid until the first kick of the ball.

[Diadora Van Basten]

I think the judge smells something hopefully he chooses to follow his nose.

[Rick Sanchez]

Why has there been no mention on a restriction of trade? Or is that for later down the line if we get there?

[PhoenixHearts]

2 minutes ago, Jammy T said:

He’s not the most exciting of chaps. Used to instruct him when he was a junior - no flair but technically very good (at construction....)

 

I understand it's part of his job to believe in the case he's presenting, but it really annoys me when he states matters of opinion or interpretation as objectively "wrong".

 

The other 2 QC's at least often say something to the effect of "it is my interpretation" or "my understanding is".

 

Just a nitpicky thing, but i find it jarring.

 

But of course I'd find it annoying regardless, as he is technically being paid to **** us.

[Unknown user]

8 minutes ago, iainmac said:

 

We've petitioned this as shareholders of the SPFL under Company Law.

Yeah, the attempt to define us as a club seems pretty weak

[Section Q]

4 minutes ago, Rick Sanchez said:

Why has there been no mention on a restriction of trade? Or is that for later down the line if we get there?

I think that comes later if we're not re-instated....

[Mikey1874]

4 minutes ago, Rick Sanchez said:

Why has there been no mention on a restriction of trade? Or is that for later down the line if we get there?

 

This is pretty much whether it goes to arbitration or full court hearing. 

 

Arguments mainly about whether arbitration is right or not. 

[stuart500]

Lord Clark must have an opinion on the legality of the Dundee vote and therefore of subsequent events. If he thinks the vote was rejected and our petition is valid you would think he would want to keep the case in the CoS. How could he pass the decision to people by definition less qualified than him (EX judges, sheriffs) leaving a risk they may make an incorrect judgement?

 

 

[1971fozzy]

15 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Could it be a strategy? Choke up and stretch out proceedings?

 

I assume there is a belief that once fixtures are out then reinstatement is no longer an option?

Seems to be a cert according to sister.net but of course they can change. The season is 4 weeks away.

[Rick Sanchez]

5 minutes ago, Section Q said:

I think that comes later if we're not re-instated....

 

4 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

This is pretty much whether it goes to arbitration or full court hearing. 

 

Arguments mainly about whether arbitration is right or not. 

 

Still a valid point that we could be getting put into a league with less games and the possibility of not having the 'bread and butter' of promotion.

 

Should highlight that other teams don't have that this season either.

Edited July 2, 2020 by Rick Sanchez

[soonbe110]

24 minutes ago, tynietigers said:

If we get the nod for court action then that’s when Doncaster will be phoning Budge to try and settle this out of court. The thing is the aren’t going to come up with the amount we are going for so would it be reconstruction 🤔 if not then court it is.

We are not fussed about reconstruction only reinstatement. Who cares what happens to United? 

[jambogirlglasgow]

3 hours ago, Cruyff said:

If you're vouching for her. I apologise @jambogirlglasgow

I genuinely thought she was Rangers tbh. 

Don’t worry about it @Ethan Hunt- I know who/what I am, as do others. 🤷🏼‍♀️

[Victorian]

You can't just absolutely exclude a legal entity from access to the legal system,   even via rules,   articles,   contractual clauses.    Even when understood,   accepted,   agreed to,   signed up to.

 

Arbitration will be a pain but it's not a worry.     I can see no circumstance where arbitration becomes a substitute and equivalent of the legal system,   with no further recourse.

[Mikey1874]

May have been mentioned but a part of Mr Thomson's argument which he stressed is that the case cannot be sisted because the SPFL and Dundee United etc made detailed replies. 

 

If he is correct then that's a big argument in favour of court.

[Newton51]

1 hour ago, Gmcjambo said:

Apologies @Newton51,  you were bang on yesterday and I missed it.    Judge brought it up today reconfirming that the SPFL did state that vote was received at 448!   Received, not sent.   Interestingly he asked Thompson if this might speed things up.      No idea why this wasn't a big story yesterday as its evidence that the SPFL blatently lied to all member.    ND should not survive this irrespective of where this case goes.   Felt like a positive moment today with judge calling it out and asking about potential affidavits and cross examination. 

 

I thought it would have been a game changer yesterday but papers didn't pick it up. 

 

Today was a mixed day. Some good moments and bad. Could go either way. Annoying hw much time the united QC spoke for

[Class of 75]

22 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Could it be a strategy? Choke up and stretch out proceedings?

 

I assume there is a belief that once fixtures are out then reinstatement is no longer an option?

I totally agree. I wouldn't be surprised if this is all a tactic by the SPFL to deflect the argument to at best arbitration and elongate proceedings until the fixture list is published. They are working on behalf of the SPFL. 

[manaliveits105]

4 minutes ago, Class of 75 said:

I totally agree. I wouldn't be surprised if this is all a tactic by the SPFL to deflect the argument to at best arbitration and elongate proceedings until the fixture list is published. They are working on behalf of the SPFL. 

Hopefully the judge is aware of their underhandedness